Distributed courts and legitimacy: What do we lose when we lose the courthouse?

Rowden, E

Distributed courts and legitimacy: What do we lose when we lose the courthouse?

Rowden, E

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Law, Culture and the Humanities, 2018, 14 (2), pp. 263 - 281
Issue Date:: 2018-06-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	1743872115612966.pdf	Published Version	341.62 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Rowden, E https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9237-600X	en_US
dc.date.issued	2018-06-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Law, Culture and the Humanities, 2018, 14 (2), pp. 263 - 281	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1743-8721	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/129373
dc.description.abstract	© 2018 The Author(s) 2015. The discourse around the merit of public architecture often depicts the architect as having complete autonomy over its design. This belies the constraints placed upon creative solutions by design briefs or the intense negotiations between the State, the architect and the various stakeholders involved in the construction process. Through a case study examining the construction of a courthouse, we demonstrate the difficulties in pursuing improvements to the phenomenological experience of justice within these constraints. It reveals the need for architectural knowledge to be shared for the common good in order to resist practices that replicate existing conditions and inhibit innovation.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Law, Culture and the Humanities	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1177/1743872115612966	en_US
dc.title	Distributed courts and legitimacy: What do we lose when we lose the courthouse?	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	2	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	14	en_US
utslib.for	1201 Architecture	en_US
utslib.for	1801 Law	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building/School of Architecture
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	2	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	14	en_US

Abstract:

© 2018 The Author(s) 2015. The discourse around the merit of public architecture often depicts the architect as having complete autonomy over its design. This belies the constraints placed upon creative solutions by design briefs or the intense negotiations between the State, the architect and the various stakeholders involved in the construction process. Through a case study examining the construction of a courthouse, we demonstrate the difficulties in pursuing improvements to the phenomenological experience of justice within these constraints. It reveals the need for architectural knowledge to be shared for the common good in order to resist practices that replicate existing conditions and inhibit innovation.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/129373